On Tuesday Paramount released a few new Star Trek Into Darkness TV spots, a handful of new images and they also announced a special Google+ Hangout with NASA, JJ Abrams and astronauts on the International Space Station. Get caught up on all of that below.

3 new TV spots

Here are the final pre-release Star Trek Into Darkness TV spots, with a few new bits here and there including more praise from the critics.

7 New Images

Paramount also released their final press materials for Star Trek Into Darkness which included some new images (or variations on previously seen images). Check em out.

Kirk (Chris Pine) chats with Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in the turbolift

John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) looks intimidating in the Enterprise Brig

Kirk and Spock talk to their prisoner in the brig

Kirk (Chris Pine) in the captain’s chair with Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and Sulu (John Cho and Science Officer 0718 (Joseph Gatt) in the background left

Director JJ Abrams talking to Chris Pine on the set of "Into Darkness"

Director JJ Abrams with cast on set of "Into Darkness"

Director JJ Abrams talking to Chris Pine on the set of "Into Darkness"

Google+ Star Trek Hangout In Space – You Can Join In

Paramount and NASA have announced a Google+ Hangout with director J.J. Abrams, writer/producer Damon Lindelof and stars Chris Pine, John Cho and Alice Eve who will be chatting with astronauts aboard the International Space Station.

The event takes place on Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 9:00 – 9:45 a.m. (PST). You can submit questions for the event by using the hashtag #askNASA on Google+, Twitter, YouTube or Instagram, or leave a comment on our Star Trek Into Darkness Facebook page. Questions will be taken throughout the event, but the deadline for video questions is 12:00pm PST on Wednesday, May 15.

I miss the sense of Utopia. The JJ- Federation Earth looks filthy with smoke like all the other dystopian sci-fi nowadays. Not a future I’d want to live in.
———-

Lemme’ guess. You want the old Trek back and you fiercely guard Roddenberry’s vision. Do yourself a favor, don’t bother with this movie. Just buy the TOS DVD box set, stock up on chips and watch the series over and over and over and over again. If all you’re going to do is whine about the new movie and what they changed, then you really shouldn’t even bother with it. The alternative is to let the 60’s go and enjoy the film for what it is.
Though it may shock you, Roddenberry’s vision of the future is NOT one I would want to live in.

#6 – What an uncalled-for load of vitriol! Such a sneering attack on someone else for expressing an opinion! You must be proud.

Calastir is right about Abrams-Trek showing Earth as a mostly gray, smoggy/foggy looking place. It’s not Blade Runner, not, but that’s NOT what Calastir said.

Calastir misses “the sense of utopia” that old Trek had about Earth in the future. Well, LOTS of us miss that, so I guess it’s time for you to drip more of your sneering venom on us.

I loved Trek’09, and I’m confident I’ll like STID, but like Calastir, I am FAR from pleased with many of the changes we’ve seen in Abrams-Trek. That doesn’t mean I want to crawl back into TOS dvds; it means I am a rational, critical-thinking person who is able both to LOVE nuTrek and to criticize it at the same time.

BTW, what’s wrong with wanting to defend Roddenberry’s vision? What’s wrong with wishing that Abrams understood that a “bright” future doesn’t mean lights in our eyes but a view of BETTER humanity living on a BETTER Earth?

If you don’t like Roddenberry’s vision, why the hell are you a Star Trek fan?

Wow, only 8 comments before a cat fight over a post showing a few innocent commercials. Can’t people just get along with one another? Must we always criticize and attack rather than be civil to one another? This is precisely why Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future, while noble, will never take place.

It’s a bit of a moot point, I know, but am I the only one wondering about the functionality of that light-covered wall behind the captain’s chair?
Granted, the Original Series had tons and tons of pretty useless blinking lights on the bridge, but in context, one might argue that at least they SEEMED to have a function. I mean: We had the science station, the engineering station etc. – By themselves those setpieces looked pretty useless, but at least they had some sort of “informed functionality”. Yet on a set where everything actually DOES look pretty functional, that overly large blinkenlights-thingumabob sticks out like a sore thumb.

I tlike to think of it as the bridge computer core, something like those port/starboard panels on the Galaxy class. It does look a lot better than many features of bridges seen before though, like those four, strange green lamps in the wall of the TMP/TWOK/TSFS bridge for instance (never even started to think what these may have been there for…)

The issue with an edit button is that it can make latter posts (posted in reference to the prior post) seem strange. What might be easier would be a pre-post edit function. (Similar to doing a listing on Craigslist).

Something that irritates me is when a franchise strays to far from the source (or popular) material. I liked the other Treks, but to me it was always a Kirk/ Spock show. I enjoyed TNG, but it was clear that they were stand in characters. Would have been better with Kirk and Co. w/ some new characters thrown in. (best thing about ST ’09)
I also don’t understand everything having to be dark lately.
I’ve heard people say ” I hope the new Superman doesn’t wear tights.” Then why have Superman? The tights weren’t goofy for 75 years. If you don’t want that, don’t go to a Superman movie.
The same for the new Lone Ranger. Anyone remember the failure of the ’79 offering? History repeats?
When you like a series, there is comfort in the familiar. Not to say it can’t grow and change, but for those that say ” I never liked the original, so I want them to change….” find something eles that you like and leave the rest alone.

Poor Clinton Spilsbury they relooped his voice for the entire film. Talk about a career killer. I wonder if we’ll get a video release with the upcoming film? An original dialog version would be a nice extra.

‘Though it may shock you, Roddenberry’s vision of the future is NOT one I would want to live in.”

So then you don’t care for Roddenberry’s vision of the future? Why even bother with Star Trek? There is a whole bunch of sci-fi that has no hope for the future, go watch or read it. Fans of Trek have a right to ask for a vision that is in keeping with the franchise. Roddenberry is Star Trek, he created it, so the more you deviate from his concept and vision, the further you get away from his message.

Give him a break. Trek fans share ideas and debate the merits of the various takes on Star Trek, they don’t resort to petty bickering and the belittling of others. There were similar disagreements when TNG debuted but it remained civil. In the end we were all fans of Star Trek and the foundation on which it was built upon. I don’t think you grasp that or what the appeal of Star Trek has always been.

The only thing I like about the bridge is that it reminds me of the brief refit of the TMP bridge seen at the end of TVH- all white with blue and green displays.
But THAT looked way cooler than this one ever could… even though that one was held together with duct tape after getting blown up for TWOK!

Hi Anthony, since you mentioned the ISS and have posted about Shatner’s tweeting with former Commander Chris Hadfield, please watch his amazing music video released just before he returned to Earth. You may wish to post it separately as a story. I also think JJ and crew would like the lens flares :)

Am I the only one that hates the announcer for those promo spots? There’s just something about his voice that annoys me greatly…it’s the sound and tone of it. Eh, whatever.

@ Calastir: I don’t know; I still get a sense of “utopian future” when I look at the Abrams-verse version of Earth. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t want it to look too clean and pristine. Even an optimistic future with a wealth of technology and relative peace wouldn’t be without its grittier side. Just my 2 bars of latinum.

The movie is out people. Get a life. You want to put off for another few days having to defend JJ and his teams stupid ideas? Bringing Khan back was lazy and having his blood be a cure to death is moronic.

Where is the movie out in Georgia or South Carolina? Us hayseeds don’t get to see it until midnight tonight. If you don’t like the movie fine, but out of common courtesy could you not give away plot details in describing your distaste for the movie.

Ok, i have to hold my hand up and say i went back and saw it again. I wouldn’t have but its been a tradition since ’79 to see a Trek movie with a friend of mine who couldn’t see it last week when I first went.
This time…… well, I didn’t hate it. I may have jumped the gun a little and perhaps didn’t really give it a chance.

Technically it is quite brilliant. Jj can handle the big set-pieces without a doubt. And ILM earned their money as usual.
The writers, well, they’ve pretty much just pilfered from past Treks and, if i’m honest, this forum too. There was stuff on screen that i’m damned sure I read on here by posters first. In fact Pikes line to Kirk about ‘getting his ass handed to him’ was definitely used on here.
So to Orci and his mates i’ll say ‘you are welcome’. Next time see if you can do something from your own imaginations. Earn your money!
You’ve a whole galaxy to play with!

You can’t make the Star trek of the past ..its done. JJ wanted to make a Trek for both Trek fans and fans not of Star Trek and Paramount agrees.
Folks, Studios are out to make Money ,do you get that ..money.
They don’t make movies for fans , this is the Star trek now , it makes money
thats the bottom line. I’m a old Trek fan , but you got to move on people , in with the new ,out with the old..its as simple as that.

@ Galvetron: Sorry, but I completely disagree with you on both of your points.

SPOILER BELOW…not like it makes a difference, since absolutely everyone else on the net has spoiled the movie to the point that trying to keep it secret is a waste of time now…

Did the villain need to be Khan? No, of course not. John Harrison could’ve just been some guy named John Harrison, a former Starfleet operative who became extremely disgruntled and decided to take matters into his own hands. Hell, it could’ve even been one of Khan’s minions, awakened after Khan’s own awakening failed, resulting in his death (an idea I almost would have preferred). I think the fact that the villain turns out to be Khan gives the film more weight and impact in terms of storytelling than if he was just some random operative with an axe to grind.

Also, the “resurrecting blood” idea is no more outrageous than that of Spock being resurrected by taking his living spirit out of McCoy and putting it back into his conveniently, miraculously regenerated body. Honestly, if I wasn’t a Star Trek fan and didn’t understand the story and characters as I do, I’d probably find that idea completely ridiculous and laughable.

#6 – What an uncalled-for load of vitriol! Such a sneering attack on someone else for expressing an opinion! You must be proud.
———–
Attack? Hostility was hardly the intent of my response. I was annoyed with the complaint and the attitude. Suggesting he save himself the trouble of watching the movie hardly constitutes as an attack, I should think. The concept is simple: if he missed the old Trek, it’s still there. He can enjoy it all he wants to the point of memorization. No one would fault him for that. Was I proud? Eh…no. Why would I be? What satisfaction is there in expressing an annoyance with an issue? Am I sorry if I hurt his feelings? If that is the case, yes. I do apologize.

Calastir is right about Abrams-Trek showing Earth as a mostly gray, smoggy/foggy looking place. It’s not Blade Runner, not, but that’s NOT what Calastir said.
———–
I didn’t make reference to Blade Runner. You’re right, he did not say that. Good on you for pointing that out, but your issue is not with me on that note.

Calastir misses “the sense of utopia” that old Trek had about Earth in the future. Well, LOTS of us miss that, so I guess it’s time for you to drip more of your sneering venom on us.
————-
What do you mean? I have no choice but to “drip venom” on you? I thought I was a three dimensional person. Can I not also be calm and collected?

I loved Trek’09, and I’m confident I’ll like STID, but like Calastir, I am FAR from pleased with many of the changes we’ve seen in Abrams-Trek. That doesn’t mean I want to crawl back into TOS dvds; it means I am a rational, critical-thinking person who is able both to LOVE nuTrek and to criticize it at the same time.
————
Again, good on you. It means you can look beyond the fact that a new guy dared depart from the “Roddenberry Box” and take a different approach. But, there is a difference between criticizing and complaining. Therefor, if all he’s going to do is complain about what was changed, I fail to see the point in going to see a movie for enjoyment purposes.

BTW, what’s wrong with wanting to defend Roddenberry’s vision? What’s wrong with wishing that Abrams understood that a “bright” future doesn’t mean lights in our eyes but a view of BETTER humanity living on a BETTER Earth?
————-

I have a question to counter your question: why does it need defending? From my perspective, Roddenberry’s vision is not so bright. But, if it is so great, why does it need defending? If you truly examined all the points of his vision, wouldn’t you conclude that it is NOT a better Earth? All humans are alike, no differing beliefs, no differing thoughts, cookie-cutter morality, all provisions met for free, motivation to do anything removed? Sorry, that kind of 2D cardboard cut-out of humanity would fall apart well before the first starship could leave the solar system. Which is sad because those starships are cool.

If you don’t like Roddenberry’s vision, why the hell are you a Star Trek fan?
———–
Again, I’d like to think I was three dimensional and have varying tastes. I like aspects of the show, I have some favorite episodes, I have favorite characters. I am by no means fanatical about the show. If anything, I am a fan of science fiction. While that is not all-inclusive, it does allow for some expansion in appreciation. I would rather not wall myself in to one series and limit my entertainment experiences, thank you. I can dislike Roddenberry’s vision and still like the series for other reasons. Roddenberry liked to put things in a box, but I will not be confined to one. Makes sense to you?
By the way, I would like to commend you for stepping in on behalf of one commenter. That’s character. While I have no reason to be proud of my response, you have reason to be proud or yours.

MILD SPOILERS IN FIRST PARAGRAPH, LESS MILD SPOILERS IN 2ND PARAGRAPH
42, Shatterhand, Very well said, exactly what I’ve been thinking about some of the comments on Star Trek’s “solid science fiction” basis. Face it folks, Star Trek involves a lot of Handwavium. Though the writers base some of their ideas on things from science journals, they extrapolate, and things like Transporters are not very likely ever to happen. Any more than a miraculous resurrection on the Genesis Planet, thanks Shatterhand for reminding us! ;)

***********SPOILER HERE SKIP ON DOWN TO PARAGRAPH 3
Fact is, the man had prob not experienced cell death when frozen, except for those cells killed by a particular sealed-off phenomenon; substance introduced medically *restored* those cells to their previous healthy state as was shown earlier in another circumstance. If people will check their medical science it will tell them that the definition of the final curtain has changed thru the years and likely will continue to do so as science advances. I didn’t find this *nearly* as farfetched as ST III TSFS.
END SPOILER*****************

43, Adm Redshirt, And I admire you – you yourself said what I was about to say, after many careful edits. That you “owned up” in gentlemanly fashion for things you regretted is to your credit, sir or ma’am.

—————-
Do the people who speak of smoke and smog realize that San Fran is a *very* foggy city? You can actually see clouds on the ground. Fluffy white unpolluted clouds. And London is rainy and grey much of the time. I think by Trek’s time they will have at least cleared up air pollution.

-Spock runs pretty. Uhura is brave [facing Klingons alone!] and kicked some ass.
-Spock and Kirk new ad line for both: TAKES A LICKIN’ AND KEEPS ON TICKIN’
-McCoy is a miracle worker, just like Scotty [and Chekov].
-Sulu rocks [I would not like to piss him off any more than McCoy would]!
-So does Carol Marcus [hoorah for standing up to you know who]!
-NuEngineering looks great, and vast!

Benedict Cumberbatch has a DEEP voice. WOW it sounded dark and deep in IMAX 3d digital and whatever Super Sound System they use. Dayum.

Music was better than I had thought/feared it might be after listening to Giacchino on WQXR recording here last week. Score sounded very good and fitting. Loved Harrison’s theme.

IMPORTANT FOR EARS If you have sensitive ears, bring “Hear-Os” or other hearing protection.
——————————————————————————————-
And please folks can we dispense with telling each other we’re being vitriolic and dripping venom or throwing acid or … [sigh] … can we just say we found “[person’s quote]” offensive or something? Hyperbolic angry words are just not necessary, really, they’re not. If we were talking terrorism, war atrocities, killing, raping, taking Medicaid away from poor children, yeah, but these are movies and TV that we love, not life-shattering events.

We *should* feel free to criticize Trek, but I really like seeing the *constructive* criticism vice the condemnation of all or most “things JJ” … I feel we owe the man applause for reviving a franchise we treasure. While we may have issues with his directorial choices, or the writers’ choices, *concrit* is the way to go; outright condemnation is not productive and will probably not get your thoughts consideration by those movie folk who stop by here. JMHO.

The cities in STID looked quite pristine but grey in look, not helped by what seemed to be constantly overcast weather. The skyscrapers of today seem small by comparison with what the cities of London and San Fransisco in the film had. However, the film did not appear dystopian.